Feedback from GAC session
Dear Colleagues, This morning Thomas & I attended a session in the GAC to update on our progress. Apologies to the members of the group who did not spot this meeting, we had very short notice. Leon could for instance not make it. FYI, I paste below in telegram style the main feedbacks from the short Q&A session that took place.
Inputs from GAC room : -Argentina (Olga) : current focus of CCWG is focused on Icann itself. Requests more engagement outside, especially in Latin America. also raised the issue of equal footing in the future community system. This will be a sensitive issue for GAC
- Spain: When considering the option of member organisation, why not go beyond US law ? Feels that it limits participation to US experts. Also insists that accountability mechanisms must be effective, independent, affordable
- France : Very supportive of our proposals and suggested that the GAC supports the principles. Looking for a way to create some form of Board oversight
- Brazil : Acknowledged quality of CCWG work. Stresses importance of "independent" review & redress. Also noted that the way the Board will consider proposals will be very sensitive for them.
- Germany : Concern about interelation with CWG and timelines.
I did welcome the input and noted that GAC input was consistent with input from other parts of the community, which I found quite encouraging.
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
I am EXTREMELY concerned about the GAC, since apparently after several years of work in the Framework of Interpretation Working Group in which 5 liaisons of the GAC (Heather Dryden, Jayantha Fernando, Frank March, Alice Munyua, Suzanne Radell) participated, and during which we briefed the GAC at almost every ICANN Meeting about our progress, they are now basically saying they know nothing about it, and they are upset about that we did it, never mind the charter and their participation. This casts doubt on the reliability and predictability of any GAC involvement and I need to know why GAC members are present and liaising (on behalf of the GAC) when the GAC later reneges. This needs to be cleared and/or settled, prior to any further work being conducted in ANY Wg with GAC involvement, but in particular this one. Or in other words, if that is the case, indeed, we do not need GAC liaison (or "members") on the CCWG-Accountability. Of course they can participate as "participants" in their personal capacity like anyone else. And, I find it ABSOLUTELY unacceptable that such a meeting is not announced to the Mailing List and conducted by the co-chairs basically behind the back of the "members", liasions, "participants" and observers. Just to make sure, that means UNACCEPTABLE! Never mind accountability. greetings, el On 2015-02-08 15:26 , Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
This morning Thomas & I attended a session in the GAC to update on our progress. Apologies to the members of the group who did not spot this meeting, we had very short notice. Leon could for instance not make it.
FYI, I paste below in telegram style the main feedbacks from the short Q&A session that took place.
Inputs from GAC room : -Argentina (Olga) : current focus of CCWG is focused on Icann itself. Requests more engagement outside, especially in Latin America. also raised the issue of equal footing in the future community system. This will be a sensitive issue for GAC
- Spain: When considering the option of member organisation, why not go beyond US law ? Feels that it limits participation to US experts. Also insists that accountability mechanisms must be effective, independent, affordable
- France : Very supportive of our proposals and suggested that the GAC supports the principles. Looking for a way to create some form of Board oversight
- Brazil : Acknowledged quality of CCWG work. Stresses importance of "independent" review & redress. Also noted that the way the Board will consider proposals will be very sensitive for them.
- Germany : Concern about interelation with CWG and timelines.
I did welcome the input and noted that GAC input was consistent with input from other parts of the community, which I found quite encouraging.
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Co chairs Dear All, I was not able to attend that meeting as I had another mission to accomplish. However, I was present at the first part of GAC in which I described a little bit about ICVG, CCWG. After presentation by Jonathan and his co chair, Larry raised an important question about various options and alternatives in each option and asked " Did you study the implementation steps and time for each option " This alert us ( CCWG) to also include in our studies for WP 1 and WP 2 the element of implementation steps and the corresponding time. May I therefore request the Co- Chairs as well as the chairs of the WPs to kindly take this into account in our further development of the process. During the discussion on the output of CWG, the interrelation between activities of CCWG and CWG, in particular the overlapping issue was also raised. Kavouss 2015-02-08 11:08 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
I am EXTREMELY concerned about the GAC, since apparently after several years of work in the Framework of Interpretation Working Group in which 5 liaisons of the GAC (Heather Dryden, Jayantha Fernando, Frank March, Alice Munyua, Suzanne Radell) participated, and during which we briefed the GAC at almost every ICANN Meeting about our progress, they are now basically saying they know nothing about it, and they are upset about that we did it, never mind the charter and their participation.
This casts doubt on the reliability and predictability of any GAC involvement and I need to know why GAC members are present and liaising (on behalf of the GAC) when the GAC later reneges.
This needs to be cleared and/or settled, prior to any further work being conducted in ANY Wg with GAC involvement, but in particular this one.
Or in other words, if that is the case, indeed, we do not need GAC liaison (or "members") on the CCWG-Accountability.
Of course they can participate as "participants" in their personal capacity like anyone else.
And, I find it ABSOLUTELY unacceptable that such a meeting is not announced to the Mailing List and conducted by the co-chairs basically behind the back of the "members", liasions, "participants" and observers.
Just to make sure, that means UNACCEPTABLE! Never mind accountability.
greetings, el
On 2015-02-08 15:26 , Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
This morning Thomas & I attended a session in the GAC to update on our progress. Apologies to the members of the group who did not spot this meeting, we had very short notice. Leon could for instance not make it.
FYI, I paste below in telegram style the main feedbacks from the short Q&A session that took place.
Inputs from GAC room : -Argentina (Olga) : current focus of CCWG is focused on Icann itself. Requests more engagement outside, especially in Latin America. also raised the issue of equal footing in the future community system. This will be a sensitive issue for GAC
- Spain: When considering the option of member organisation, why not go beyond US law ? Feels that it limits participation to US experts. Also insists that accountability mechanisms must be effective, independent, affordable
- France : Very supportive of our proposals and suggested that the GAC supports the principles. Looking for a way to create some form of Board oversight
- Brazil : Acknowledged quality of CCWG work. Stresses importance of "independent" review & redress. Also noted that the way the Board will consider proposals will be very sensitive for them.
- Germany : Concern about interelation with CWG and timelines.
I did welcome the input and noted that GAC input was consistent with input from other parts of the community, which I found quite encouraging.
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Kavouss, the question of time needed for implementation is on our radar. However, we will only be able to really speak to this once we know a bit more about what recommendations we will likely make as implementation times depend on that. Best Thomas --- rickert.net
Am 08.02.2015 um 23:08 schrieb Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Co chairs Dear All, I was not able to attend that meeting as I had another mission to accomplish. However, I was present at the first part of GAC in which I described a little bit about ICVG, CCWG. After presentation by Jonathan and his co chair, Larry raised an important question about various options and alternatives in each option and asked " Did you study the implementation steps and time for each option " This alert us ( CCWG) to also include in our studies for WP 1 and WP 2 the element of implementation steps and the corresponding time. May I therefore request the Co- Chairs as well as the chairs of the WPs to kindly take this into account in our further development of the process. During the discussion on the output of CWG, the interrelation between activities of CCWG and CWG, in particular the overlapping issue was also raised. Kavouss
2015-02-08 11:08 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
I am EXTREMELY concerned about the GAC, since apparently after several years of work in the Framework of Interpretation Working Group in which 5 liaisons of the GAC (Heather Dryden, Jayantha Fernando, Frank March, Alice Munyua, Suzanne Radell) participated, and during which we briefed the GAC at almost every ICANN Meeting about our progress, they are now basically saying they know nothing about it, and they are upset about that we did it, never mind the charter and their participation.
This casts doubt on the reliability and predictability of any GAC involvement and I need to know why GAC members are present and liaising (on behalf of the GAC) when the GAC later reneges.
This needs to be cleared and/or settled, prior to any further work being conducted in ANY Wg with GAC involvement, but in particular this one.
Or in other words, if that is the case, indeed, we do not need GAC liaison (or "members") on the CCWG-Accountability.
Of course they can participate as "participants" in their personal capacity like anyone else.
And, I find it ABSOLUTELY unacceptable that such a meeting is not announced to the Mailing List and conducted by the co-chairs basically behind the back of the "members", liasions, "participants" and observers.
Just to make sure, that means UNACCEPTABLE! Never mind accountability.
greetings, el
On 2015-02-08 15:26 , Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
This morning Thomas & I attended a session in the GAC to update on our progress. Apologies to the members of the group who did not spot this meeting, we had very short notice. Leon could for instance not make it.
FYI, I paste below in telegram style the main feedbacks from the short Q&A session that took place.
Inputs from GAC room : -Argentina (Olga) : current focus of CCWG is focused on Icann itself. Requests more engagement outside, especially in Latin America. also raised the issue of equal footing in the future community system. This will be a sensitive issue for GAC
- Spain: When considering the option of member organisation, why not go beyond US law ? Feels that it limits participation to US experts. Also insists that accountability mechanisms must be effective, independent, affordable
- France : Very supportive of our proposals and suggested that the GAC supports the principles. Looking for a way to create some form of Board oversight
- Brazil : Acknowledged quality of CCWG work. Stresses importance of "independent" review & redress. Also noted that the way the Board will consider proposals will be very sensitive for them.
- Germany : Concern about interelation with CWG and timelines.
I did welcome the input and noted that GAC input was consistent with input from other parts of the community, which I found quite encouraging.
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thomas, Tks for reply, Yes I agree with your comments. I just wanted to reflect what was discussed at GAC and what was the views of NTIA. I wanted to remind ourselves not to forget to address this important issue and not to leave it to the end of our works and not to be criticized that we proposed some actions without considering its implementation time Am I correct ? Kavouss / 2015-02-09 3:20 GMT+01:00 Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>:
Dear Kavouss, the question of time needed for implementation is on our radar. However, we will only be able to really speak to this once we know a bit more about what recommendations we will likely make as implementation times depend on that.
Best Thomas --- rickert.net
Am 08.02.2015 um 23:08 schrieb Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
:
Dear Co chairs Dear All, I was not able to attend that meeting as I had another mission to accomplish. However, I was present at the first part of GAC in which I described a little bit about ICVG, CCWG. After presentation by Jonathan and his co chair, Larry raised an important question about various options and alternatives in each option and asked " Did you study the implementation steps and time for each option " This alert us ( CCWG) to also include in our studies for WP 1 and WP 2 the element of implementation steps and the corresponding time. May I therefore request the Co- Chairs as well as the chairs of the WPs to kindly take this into account in our further development of the process. During the discussion on the output of CWG, the interrelation between activities of CCWG and CWG, in particular the overlapping issue was also raised. Kavouss
2015-02-08 11:08 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
I am EXTREMELY concerned about the GAC, since apparently after several years of work in the Framework of Interpretation Working Group in which 5 liaisons of the GAC (Heather Dryden, Jayantha Fernando, Frank March, Alice Munyua, Suzanne Radell) participated, and during which we briefed the GAC at almost every ICANN Meeting about our progress, they are now basically saying they know nothing about it, and they are upset about that we did it, never mind the charter and their participation.
This casts doubt on the reliability and predictability of any GAC involvement and I need to know why GAC members are present and liaising (on behalf of the GAC) when the GAC later reneges.
This needs to be cleared and/or settled, prior to any further work being conducted in ANY Wg with GAC involvement, but in particular this one.
Or in other words, if that is the case, indeed, we do not need GAC liaison (or "members") on the CCWG-Accountability.
Of course they can participate as "participants" in their personal capacity like anyone else.
And, I find it ABSOLUTELY unacceptable that such a meeting is not announced to the Mailing List and conducted by the co-chairs basically behind the back of the "members", liasions, "participants" and observers.
Just to make sure, that means UNACCEPTABLE! Never mind accountability.
greetings, el
On 2015-02-08 15:26 , Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
This morning Thomas & I attended a session in the GAC to update on our progress. Apologies to the members of the group who did not spot this meeting, we had very short notice. Leon could for instance not make it.
FYI, I paste below in telegram style the main feedbacks from the short Q&A session that took place.
Inputs from GAC room : -Argentina (Olga) : current focus of CCWG is focused on Icann itself. Requests more engagement outside, especially in Latin America. also raised the issue of equal footing in the future community system. This will be a sensitive issue for GAC
- Spain: When considering the option of member organisation, why not go beyond US law ? Feels that it limits participation to US experts. Also insists that accountability mechanisms must be effective, independent, affordable
- France : Very supportive of our proposals and suggested that the GAC supports the principles. Looking for a way to create some form of Board oversight
- Brazil : Acknowledged quality of CCWG work. Stresses importance of "independent" review & redress. Also noted that the way the Board will consider proposals will be very sensitive for them.
- Germany : Concern about interelation with CWG and timelines.
I did welcome the input and noted that GAC input was consistent with input from other parts of the community, which I found quite encouraging.
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Further to my below, and you are all aware that I raised this as part of my intervention during our interaction with the GAC, this is from the GAC Communique: With regard to the CCWG-Accountability: • GAC Members will continue to work within the CCWG to develop the proposals for enhancing ICANN’s accountability, with reporting back to the GAC and guidance on major issues from the GAC as a whole; • The GAC will work to identify particular issues for governments as both individual or collective participants in any new or enhanced mechanisms; • The next stage of the GAC input to relevant work streams will include public policy principles that could guide development of any new or enhanced accountability mechanisms; • The GAC will contribute to the work of the CCWG towards a consensus proposal for submission to the ICANN Board. Both processes will have the highest priority for GAC inter-sessional work, the GAC being mindful of the updated timeline. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gac-to-board-11feb15-en... I am grateful to the GAC for clarifying this, in particular the two-way channel to the GAC as a whole. greetings, el On 2015-02-08 11:08 , Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
I am EXTREMELY concerned about the GAC, since apparently after several years of work in the Framework of Interpretation Working Group in which 5 liaisons of the GAC (Heather Dryden, Jayantha Fernando, Frank March, Alice Munyua, Suzanne Radell) participated, and during which we briefed the GAC at almost every ICANN Meeting about our progress, they are now basically saying they know nothing about it, and they are upset about that we did it, never mind the charter and their participation.
This casts doubt on the reliability and predictability of any GAC involvement and I need to know why GAC members are present and liaising (on behalf of the GAC) when the GAC later reneges.
This needs to be cleared and/or settled, prior to any further work being conducted in ANY Wg with GAC involvement, but in particular this one. [...] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQIVAwUBVN4Ek5cFHaN5RT+rAQIC1xAAkUcPuURi2nKFWqwt4MBTv+hVWUQx83hk mFo3LgQF4+a4SpzEk36viu7B6hzg0lsRebcSZTg2irOJDY1qxH0pYqhxej6BvFkF Q5mnJ02ChBjG20HEq2mb4+IUIEN2MJVKme+9aC8lXqIH+Qr3FVIzmPq4LlDKc/O/ 5ze9wHJf3RVWYD+7W6vSM7dxMywLh4v83U6sJVYV5hIfja5Boa+twvssZidaI1s0 9SDe/OXstMp7T8m5lg+xkzDn2O81yjoJr19GAjSjRtums49Olxqb24059/eaHln7 dQ3T7AIGyQGuwL7ZW7U037XgR05vUPZd5Kugj7PNfgfBG2+4jZNfTcy4Q8YpW26v 5mBsHmq+uOmA/NFocrKoVG6p5/ZglNY+7d5B/gliZXOb1wQFEdMCVBKgIZi4TZMY TzBfIBsAC7QB5Ptc+cc2xiWBFwsPmEidX2RhOFBP3YkaZtGkQYIt1Fnb1g7Cizo2 4UQRs6YJwu65udKiZ3U//WhlroV0J90NyXfzha59eQoZVhzrlXHRglYQ4R04Pa53 CKzIi0kzjKj8U8RuOhkl3eipqk9Oy2I8HiAH5t0hnyNWreRKmIkslhxuFYQeKtkU NwVeHIKxnOimnr8O1oS073/IZmOG4zjUde1v0yMbAkmCvO2zD7zX4VSr3GddSSXx Avrssct3q1E= =zG+Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (4)
-
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Mathieu Weill -
Thomas Rickert